logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2020.12.15 2020가단1485
임대차보증금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 44,600,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from April 3, 2020 to December 15, 2020.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 27, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C, on behalf of the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000,000, and KRW 51,000,000,000, among the buildings located in macro-si D, owned by the Defendant. At that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant.

B. On October 2018, the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the said lease agreement with C, who was represented by the Defendant, and at the same time returned the leased object by the end of December 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2's entries, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the above lease contract was terminated upon agreement on December 31, 2018, and on the other hand, the Plaintiff is required to deduct the total amount of KRW 5,300,000 (50,000 per month x 10 months) from KRW 50,000 to October 2018.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the lease deposit amount of KRW 44,700,000 (i.e., KRW 50,000,000 - KRW 5,300,000) and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's assertion asserts that since the plaintiff did not deliver the above leased object to the defendant, the management expenses of KRW 900,000 from November 2018 to April 2020 (=50,000 per month x 18 months) should also be additionally deducted from the plaintiff's lease deposit claim.

On December 31, 2018, as seen earlier, the above lease contract was terminated on December 31, 2018, and thus, it should be deducted from the deposit deposit the sum of management expenses on November 2018 and December 2018, which continued to exist under the lease contract.

However, there is a lack of evidence to support that the plaintiff actively uses and benefits from the transfer of the above real estate for the purpose of returning the deposit after the termination of the lease contract.

arrow